You and I both have sufficient experience of the world to know that ANY laws written this broadly NEVER EVER are specific enough to do anything but provide very broad guidelines that are wide open to interpretation.

In RC authentic interpretations have the same force as the law:

Well, I did have a hot dog on Friday during Lent once, at a baseball game, because I forgot what day it was- but nobody came to arrest me.

Don't forget that he sets the overall direction of the RCC. His priorities become the point of reference for all other activities, which is why the RCC places such an emphasis on his office. Administratively-speaking, he is the 'alpha and omega.'

You and I both have sufficient experience of the world to know that ANY laws written this broadly NEVER EVER are specific enough to do anything but provide very broad guidelines that are wide open to interpretation.

In RC authentic interpretations have the same force as the law:

Well, I did have a hot dog on Friday during Lent once, at a baseball game, because I forgot what day it was- but nobody came to arrest me.

All of which is slightly different from holding a trump card and deciding when and when not to use it. And slightly different from consulting with and being advised by the bishops and the bishops having, in their respective dioceses, a pretty free hand on the whole.

Don't forget that he sets the overall direction of the RCC. His priorities become the point of reference for all other activities, which is why the RCC places such an emphasis on his office. Administratively-speaking, he is the 'alpha and omega.'

All of which is slightly different from holding a trump card and deciding when and when not to use it. And slightly different from consulting with and being advised by the bishops and the bishops having, in their respective dioceses, a pretty free hand on the whole.

Don't forget that he sets the overall direction of the RCC. His priorities become the point of reference for all other activities, which is why the RCC places such an emphasis on his office. Administratively-speaking, he is the 'alpha and omega.'

Sheesh, where's your sense of adventure? Don't you like to explore new pathways, get lost in the woods, sucked into black holes, and explode your mind ? You want us to stay on topic?? What fun is that?

Anyway, in answer to your question--Yes. For what it's worth, that is. But then, I already said that somewhere in this thread a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away .

As for whether the Pope is supreme legislator or not, I have 2 questions: 1) Does it really matter, and why or why not? and 2) Can that title be interpreted correctly as more of an honorific than something substantive? Compare the title of the President of the U.S. as Commander-in-Chief. Now, he has supreme authority over the armed forces but in reality, you never see him on the battlefield commanding troops, devising tactics, orchestrating battles, etc. Heck, he doesn't even wear a uniform! (I don't know if that's a good analogy but it's the best I can come up with at the moment .)

The title of Commander and Chief is not a good analog for the Pope of Rome.

The formation of the Code of Canons and the formation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was done by experts in particular areas of Church law, moral law, and doctrine.

Pope John Paul II was the Supreme Legislator in a formal sense that is reflective of the dignity and oversight function of his office. He brings the text into formal being as texts of the Catholic Church but that does not mean he personally is responsible for the material construction of their content.

The office of the Pope is an office of delegation and oversight, which means that a certain distance is necessary. Papal delegates must be left alone to do what it is the pope has asked them to do, what tasks with which he has entrusted them.

That applies even more to the bishops who are indeed the material Church on the ground that operates NOT by papal mandate but by divine mandate.

I don't care what you find in texts that seems to support your warped imaginings of the papal office.

So far I haven't heard anything from any Orthodox correspondent here that allows me to say 'yes...that's it'....

Haven't heard much of that from my fellow Catholics either.

As for the pope as monarch, the text cited is talking about the Vatican state. Not the Catholic Church...but hell who makes THAT distinction...eh?

The president has the right and can when he desires review all and any aspects of military operations. The president usually reviews the most important operations, including the setting of combat strategy and 'rules of engagement.'

On a practical level, yes, the pope and the president probably are too busy to get involved with local affairs. However, major strategies effect local practices. There is no getting away from supreme power.

I do think that the interpretation of the role of the Pope of Rome is important, given the claims of the RCC in regards to the office.

I do think that you can make a comparison between the Pope and the President of the US in regards to the Armed Forces, but you must remember that the president does dictate what happens in the field, both directly and indirectly. In the case of bin Laden, we actually watched the president watching his orders being carried out by the SEALs. The president also reviews battle plans (watch any documentary on the Vietnam War to see presidents in action when it comes to battlefield planning), and appoints all the commanding officers. It is a powerful position, and a presidential order trumps all others.

As for whether the Pope is supreme legislator or not, I have 2 questions: 1) Does it really matter, and why or why not? and 2) Can that title be interpreted correctly as more of an honorific than something substantive? Compare the title of the President of the U.S. as Commander-in-Chief. Now, he has supreme authority over the armed forces but in reality, you never see him on the battlefield commanding troops, devising tactics, orchestrating battles, etc. Heck, he doesn't even wear a uniform! (I don't know if that's a good analogy but it's the best I can come up with at the moment .)

Okay, I can accept that, as far as it goes. The president, however, doesn't (as far as I know) review *every* battle plan, nor does he devise them. He certainly may have input about them and final authority as to whether or not they are carried out and when, but his role is much more, shall we say, supervisory than actual hands-on. And, while he may have a trump card, I think he uses it pretty sparingly. Much the same could be said of the Pope, I would imagine. Am I wrong about that?

You're right--no getting away from supreme power . And I think we're both saying pretty much the same thing here.

Anybody remember the Bay of Pigs?

Who really was in command of operations that day?

When I was a child it was the President who made all the decisions that day. That was how I saw our Commander in Chief.

As I got older I realized that the Admirals would have acted as they needed to act that day and damn the orders from Washington if they thought the situation warranted it.

You don't even have THAT much of a vertical "chain of command" in the Catholic Church.

J Michael, I think you summed it up well: on the one hand the Pope has a trump card, on the other hand he uses it pretty rarely. (Catholics posters, please chime in if you disagree with what I said.)

Personally I think this is crappy way to express the workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church but it fits in this group I suppose.

I was trying to drag this stupid discussion up out of the mud of papal biases and WAGs but some of my fellow Catholics prefer to root around in the slops, rather than take the risks of trying to move to dry ground.

"The Church consists of many churches in communion among themselves; the network of communion that the Church thus forms finds its fixed points in the Bishops: as the post-apostolic continuation of the Collegium Apostolorum [College of Apostles], they are responsible for the purity of the word and communion.

"With this as departure point, we can also realize the earliest meaning of the Primacy of the Roman Bishop .... It merely signified that the Roman Bishop of the sedes Sancti Petri [seat of St. Peter] was the central point of orientation in the unity of communion ....

"The Primacy of the Pope was not understood, therefore, in the administrative sense, but was wholly derived from a eucharistic ecclesiology. This means .... that Rome incarnates the true communio and, therefore, is the determining point of the horizontal relationship, without which a community cannot remain truly ecclesia"

"The Church consists of many churches in communion among themselves; the network of communion that the Church thus forms finds its fixed points in the Bishops: as the post-apostolic continuation of the Collegium Apostolorum [College of Apostles], they are responsible for the purity of the word and communion.

"With this as departure point, we can also realize the earliest meaning of the Primacy of the Roman Bishop .... It merely signified that the Roman Bishop of the sedes Sancti Petri [seat of St. Peter] was the central point of orientation in the unity of communion ....

"The Primacy of the Pope was not understood, therefore, in the administrative sense, but was wholly derived from a eucharistic ecclesiology. This means .... that Rome incarnates the true communio and, therefore, is the determining point of the horizontal relationship, without which a community cannot remain truly ecclesia"

Rome incarnates the true communio? I don't think the Orthodox will ever be able to agree with such a statement. This is tantamount to saying that no community outside of communion with Rome is ecclesial (specifically referring to the church, that is), is it not? How did that work, before there was a see in Rome?

« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 05:59:07 PM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

J Michael, I think you summed it up well: on the one hand the Pope has a trump card, on the other hand he uses it pretty rarely. (Catholics posters, please chime in if you disagree with what I said.)

Personally I think this is crappy way to express the workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church but it fits in this group I suppose.

I was trying to drag this stupid discussion up out of the mud of papal biases and WAGs but some of my fellow Catholics prefer to root around in the slops, rather than take the risks of trying to move to dry ground.

The Primacy of the Pope was not understood, therefore, in the administrative sense, but was wholly derived from a eucharistic ecclesiology." (Joseph Ratzinger, "Il Concetto della Chiesa nel Pensiero Patristico," in I Grandi Temi del Concilio, Rome: Paoline, 1965, pp. 154-155)

Regarding the immediate discussion in this thread about the about the *current authority* of the pope the above quotation is completely out of context.

It is important to underscore that then Cardinal Ratzinger, in the immediate context of the above remarks, was speaking of primacy as it had previously existed in the first Christian millennium. It was not a statement about what primacy is like in the Roman Catholic Church today.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger fully acknowledges the obvious fact that primacy has undergone extensive further development in the Roman Catholic tradition beyond primacy as it existed in the first millennium situation described in M's quotation (cf. Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology discusses this in some detail).[1]

Then Cardinal Ratzinger's observations are certainly worthwhile per se, however they are not germane to the discussion which we have been having in this thread in the last couple of pages about the nature of papal authority in the Roman Catholic tradition today.

___________________[1] In a discussion of Orthodox and Roman Catholic dialog then Cardinal Ratzinger writes: "How, then, are the maximum demands to be decided in advance? Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse... Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium... Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had. (Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 199-200).

The Primacy of the Pope was not understood, therefore, in the administrative sense, but was wholly derived from a eucharistic ecclesiology." (Joseph Ratzinger, "Il Concetto della Chiesa nel Pensiero Patristico," in I Grandi Temi del Concilio, Rome: Paoline, 1965, pp. 154-155)

Regarding the immediate discussion in this thread about the about the *current authority* of the pope the above quotation is completely out of context.

It is important to underscore that then Cardinal Ratzinger, in the immediate context of the above remarks, was speaking of primacy as it had previously existed in the first Christian millennium. It was not a statement about what primacy is like in the Roman Catholic Church today.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger fully acknowledges the obvious fact that primacy has undergone extensive further development in the Roman Catholic tradition beyond primacy as it existed in the first millennium situation described in M's quotation (cf. Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology discusses this in some detail).[1]

Then Cardinal Ratzinger's observations are certainly worthwhile per se, however they are not germane to the discussion which we have been having in this thread in the last couple of pages about the nature of papal authority in the Roman Catholic tradition today.

___________________[1] In a discussion of Orthodox and Roman Catholic dialog then Cardinal Ratzinger writes: "How, then, are the maximum demands to be decided in advance? Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse... Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium... Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had. (Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 199-200).

Pope John Paul II was the Supreme Legislator in a formal sense that is reflective of the dignity and oversight function of his office.

What about Pope Benedict XVI?

Oh for cryin' out loud:

The title of Legislator is an honorific which was given to Pope John Paul II BECAUSE he promulgated the current western Code of Canons of the Catholic Church. Not that he wrote them. Not that he authorized or even read every jot and tittle of the canons themselves, but because he put his name to the document when it was promulgated.

When the next pope who promulgates another revised western code does so, then the title will pass to him.

The Primacy of the Pope was not understood, therefore, in the administrative sense, but was wholly derived from a eucharistic ecclesiology." (Joseph Ratzinger, "Il Concetto della Chiesa nel Pensiero Patristico," in I Grandi Temi del Concilio, Rome: Paoline, 1965, pp. 154-155)

Regarding the immediate discussion in this thread about the about the *current authority* of the pope the above quotation is completely out of context.

Actually it is NOT out of context because it is IN the context of what I posted several pages ago. A quotation that is quite contemporary and up-to-date:

Pope Benedict on the Petrine Ministry:

"The Catholic Church understands the Petrine ministry as a gift of the Lord to His Church. This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity ... is understood to be the 'Servus Servorum Dei' (Servant of the Servants of God). ... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognised by one and all".

Again, an interesting insight. This happens a lot with you, Mary. You write things in a very general way, then expect we are supposed to get your specific meaning.

We also read for ourselves documents from the RCC church, double-check with other RC sites, and yet you routinely come up with some other interpretation that is not at all present in the text. Then you get upset because we do not see what you see invisibly present, and it would seem a vast majority of RCs don't seem to see what you see either.

I am still waiting for your sources on this theory of yours that Roman Catholic bishops deceived Medieval RCs by issuing temporal indulgences when the bishops in fact did not believe in temporal indulgences. I think your representations of the RCC are distortions when you are unable to present clear facts or try to tell us that something which is very clear says something entirely different.

While I do not believe in the doctrine of papal universal jurisdiction and other doctrines of the RCC the diverge from the tradition of the Church, I do not have animosity or hatred for RCs. Yet, you continue to treat me like I am some sort of 'mean person' who is purposefully and wickedly insulting the Church of Rome.

I just don't get why you have to become so emotionally tangled up in your dealings here. There is going to be disagreement, which is why it is an 'Orthodox-Catholic Forum' not a 'Catholic-Catholic Forum.'

The title of Legislator is an honorific which was given to Pope John Paul II BECAUSE he promulgated the current western Code of Canons of the Catholic Church. Not that he wrote them. Not that he authorized or even read every jot and tittle of the canons themselves, but because he put his name to the document when it was promulgated.

Seriously, I don't think she thinks through some of these points: of course the pope doesn't read through every single line of every document his magisterium produces, but it is the nature of leadership to take responsibility for everything that happens under his watch. That's how it works everywhere else. Otherwise, such things as 'nihil obstat' or 'imprimatur' would be meaningless ("Well, yes, I approved it... but don't blame me, I didn't read it!")

The title of Legislator is an honorific which was given to Pope John Paul II BECAUSE he promulgated the current western Code of Canons of the Catholic Church. Not that he wrote them. Not that he authorized or even read every jot and tittle of the canons themselves, but because he put his name to the document when it was promulgated.

Seriously, I don't think she thinks through some of these points: of course the pope doesn't read through every single line of every document his magisterium produces, but it is the nature of leadership to take responsibility for everything that happens under his watch. That's how it works everywhere else. Otherwise, such things as 'nihil obstat' or 'imprimatur' would be meaningless ("Well, yes, I approved it... but don't blame me, I didn't read it!")

That's cute rhetoric but it does not get to the heart of Peter's inquiry.

John Paul II is referred to as the Supreme Legislator because the Code of Canon Law was promulgated on his watch.

Not all popes are Supreme Legislators.

It's an honorific to designate the fact that he was pope when the Code was promulgated.

Mary

PS: the imprimatur and nihil obstat has been explained here many times. It is not entirely meaningless but it is not an endorsement of every bit of commentary in the text. It simply says that there is nothing in the text that seeks to or would result in any kind of destruction of the Church and her teaching. It is not a threatening text. Beyond that you cannot, rightly and truthfully, take it.

Seriously, I don't think she thinks through some of these points: of course the pope doesn't read through every single line of every document his magisterium produces, but it is the nature of leadership to take responsibility for everything that happens under his watch. That's how it works everywhere else. Otherwise, such things as 'nihil obstat' or 'imprimatur' would be meaningless ("Well, yes, I approved it... but don't blame me, I didn't read it!")

That's cute rhetoric but it does not get to the heart of Peter's inquiry.

John Paul II is referred to as the Supreme Legislator because the Code of Canon Law was promulgated on his watch.

Not all popes are Supreme Legislators.

It's an honorific to designate the fact that he was pope when the Code was promulgated.

Mary

PS: the imprimatur and nihil obstat has been explained here many times. It is not entirely meaningless but it is not an endorsement of every bit of commentary in the text. It simply says that there is nothing in the text that seeks to or would result in any kind of destruction of the Church and her teaching. It is not a threatening text. Beyond that you cannot, rightly and truthfully, take it.

Some of the notes you write that misrepresent my thoughts and ideas and that try to make it appear as though I am upset or angry are, from my perspective, unduly and inaccurately invasive and argumentative. So I will not respond to them except to say what I say here. Eventually I will stop responding to them at all as I have stopped responding to some of Father Ambrose's broadsides for the same reasons.

Again, an interesting insight. This happens a lot with you, Mary. You write things in a very general way, then expect we are supposed to get your specific meaning.

We also read for ourselves documents from the RCC church, double-check with other RC sites, and yet you routinely come up with some other interpretation that is not at all present in the text. Then you get upset because we do not see what you see invisibly present, and it would seem a vast majority of RCs don't seem to see what you see either.

I am still waiting for your sources on this theory of yours that Roman Catholic bishops deceived Medieval RCs by issuing temporal indulgences when the bishops in fact did not believe in temporal indulgences. I think your representations of the RCC are distortions when you are unable to present clear facts or try to tell us that something which is very clear says something entirely different.

While I do not believe in the doctrine of papal universal jurisdiction and other doctrines of the RCC the diverge from the tradition of the Church, I do not have animosity or hatred for RCs. Yet, you continue to treat me like I am some sort of 'mean person' who is purposefully and wickedly insulting the Church of Rome.

I just don't get why you have to become so emotionally tangled up in your dealings here. There is going to be disagreement, which is why it is an 'Orthodox-Catholic Forum' not a 'Catholic-Catholic Forum.'

Seriously, I don't think she thinks through some of these points: of course the pope doesn't read through every single line of every document his magisterium produces, but it is the nature of leadership to take responsibility for everything that happens under his watch. That's how it works everywhere else. Otherwise, such things as 'nihil obstat' or 'imprimatur' would be meaningless ("Well, yes, I approved it... but don't blame me, I didn't read it!")

That's cute rhetoric but it does not get to the heart of Peter's inquiry.

John Paul II is referred to as the Supreme Legislator because the Code of Canon Law was promulgated on his watch.

Not all popes are Supreme Legislators.

It's an honorific to designate the fact that he was pope when the Code was promulgated.

Mary

PS: the imprimatur and nihil obstat has been explained here many times. It is not entirely meaningless but it is not an endorsement of every bit of commentary in the text. It simply says that there is nothing in the text that seeks to or would result in any kind of destruction of the Church and her teaching. It is not a threatening text. Beyond that you cannot, rightly and truthfully, take it.

I am going to have to beat my chest on this on.

I checked with Pete Vere and it is as I expected that all bishops are the legislators of the Church, which is really my point in all of this and that the pope can then been seen as the supreme legislator by virtue of the papal office. So I am wrong to say that it is a singular case where the pope can be called supreme legislator.

However I am not wrong in expressing the idea that Supreme Legislator is not a papal title. Again it is with the understanding that the Pope would be the court of last resort in any kind of universal or local legal dispute in the Church.

Now here is an example and something that I do know to be true from personal experience. Any complaint against a local ordinary written by a lay person or a priest to Rome, or to the regional synod, is immediately sent to the local ordinary in question and the local ordinary. So that if you complain about your bishop to Rome or to other bishops, it will not be long before your letter resides in the circular file of your local bishop, and you become known as a trouble-maker. If you are a priest you may get a letter of warning rather than any satisfactory response to your claim. You'd better be able to afford a canon lawyer and also to find one willing to take your case if you want any kind of redress for an episcopal wrong-doing. It will not come from other bishops, nor will it come from Rome. Only one the rarest of circumstances is justice ever really done in the Church. A look at the decades that it took to get hold of the sexual excesses of Catholic priests should be indicative. Bishops covered their own liabilities and some of the wicked ones used the scandal as a way to get rid of pesky parish priests.

It's this kind of thing that the continual emphasis on supreme anything with respect to the pope tends to ignore or be ignorant of, and it is this sort of thing that makes some of the decisions in the Church so difficult to understand in general. It is dangerous to press the point because it hides another and sometimes far worse reality.

IF a local bishop were to find himself in a situation where it might benefit him to ask the pope for a judgment in a given situation THEN the pope MIGHT offer a judgment, and it is then that the judgment is final and without recourse. But a pope is not going to interfere between a priest and his bishop without being asked BY THE BISHOP, or a majority of the bishops in the local synodal region...for example.

Legislator in the Church is a formal episcopal function, though it is not the primary function by any means and is always delegated at the level of the local sees and at the primatial see.

Seriously, I don't think she thinks through some of these points: of course the pope doesn't read through every single line of every document his magisterium produces, but it is the nature of leadership to take responsibility for everything that happens under his watch. That's how it works everywhere else. Otherwise, such things as 'nihil obstat' or 'imprimatur' would be meaningless ("Well, yes, I approved it... but don't blame me, I didn't read it!")

That's cute rhetoric but it does not get to the heart of Peter's inquiry.

John Paul II is referred to as the Supreme Legislator because the Code of Canon Law was promulgated on his watch.

Not all popes are Supreme Legislators.

It's an honorific to designate the fact that he was pope when the Code was promulgated.

Mary

PS: the imprimatur and nihil obstat has been explained here many times. It is not entirely meaningless but it is not an endorsement of every bit of commentary in the text. It simply says that there is nothing in the text that seeks to or would result in any kind of destruction of the Church and her teaching. It is not a threatening text. Beyond that you cannot, rightly and truthfully, take it.

Fascinating! However, the pope maintains the ability, whether he exercises it or not, to act directly through his 'immediate and ordinary jurisdiction.' It is very clear that he ultimately can exercise the 'nuclear option,' though for practical reasons (like not wanting to scare the bishops her relies on to carry out his ministry) he doesn't have to.

Seriously, I don't think she thinks through some of these points: of course the pope doesn't read through every single line of every document his magisterium produces, but it is the nature of leadership to take responsibility for everything that happens under his watch. That's how it works everywhere else. Otherwise, such things as 'nihil obstat' or 'imprimatur' would be meaningless ("Well, yes, I approved it... but don't blame me, I didn't read it!")

That's cute rhetoric but it does not get to the heart of Peter's inquiry.

John Paul II is referred to as the Supreme Legislator because the Code of Canon Law was promulgated on his watch.

Not all popes are Supreme Legislators.

It's an honorific to designate the fact that he was pope when the Code was promulgated.

Mary

PS: the imprimatur and nihil obstat has been explained here many times. It is not entirely meaningless but it is not an endorsement of every bit of commentary in the text. It simply says that there is nothing in the text that seeks to or would result in any kind of destruction of the Church and her teaching. It is not a threatening text. Beyond that you cannot, rightly and truthfully, take it.

I am going to have to beat my chest on this on.

I checked with Pete Vere and it is as I expected that all bishops are the legislators of the Church, which is really my point in all of this and that the pope can then been seen as the supreme legislator by virtue of the papal office. So I am wrong to say that it is a singular case where the pope can be called supreme legislator.

However I am not wrong in expressing the idea that Supreme Legislator is not a papal title. Again it is with the understanding that the Pope would be the court of last resort in any kind of universal or local legal dispute in the Church.

Now here is an example and something that I do know to be true from personal experience. Any complaint against a local ordinary written by a lay person or a priest to Rome, or to the regional synod, is immediately sent to the local ordinary in question and the local ordinary. So that if you complain about your bishop to Rome or to other bishops, it will not be long before your letter resides in the circular file of your local bishop, and you become known as a trouble-maker. If you are a priest you may get a letter of warning rather than any satisfactory response to your claim. You'd better be able to afford a canon lawyer and also to find one willing to take your case if you want any kind of redress for an episcopal wrong-doing. It will not come from other bishops, nor will it come from Rome. Only one the rarest of circumstances is justice ever really done in the Church. A look at the decades that it took to get hold of the sexual excesses of Catholic priests should be indicative. Bishops covered their own liabilities and some of the wicked ones used the scandal as a way to get rid of pesky parish priests.

It's this kind of thing that the continual emphasis on supreme anything with respect to the pope tends to ignore or be ignorant of, and it is this sort of thing that makes some of the decisions in the Church so difficult to understand in general. It is dangerous to press the point because it hides another and sometimes far worse reality.

IF a local bishop were to find himself in a situation where it might benefit him to ask the pope for a judgment in a given situation THEN the pope MIGHT offer a judgment, and it is then that the judgment is final and without recourse. But a pope is not going to interfere between a priest and his bishop without being asked BY THE BISHOP, or a majority of the bishops in the local synodal region...for example.

Legislator in the Church is a formal episcopal function, though it is not the primary function by any means and is always delegated at the level of the local sees and at the primatial see.

Again, the problem is that you at times promulgate your opinions as facts, and can't provide sources for your assertions. So, I simply have much more doubts about what you have to say when you claim to know the truth.

The funny thing is the Fr. Ambrose always finds sources when challenged. You do not.

I have shown you where I've found my opinions on the RCC. I get them from RCC sources. You might not like what I get, but I get them from your equals and superiors in your Church.

Some of the notes you write that misrepresent my thoughts and ideas and that try to make it appear as though I am upset or angry are, from my perspective, unduly and inaccurately invasive and argumentative. So I will not respond to them except to say what I say here. Eventually I will stop responding to them at all as I have stopped responding to some of Father Ambrose's broadsides for the same reasons.

Again, an interesting insight. This happens a lot with you, Mary. You write things in a very general way, then expect we are supposed to get your specific meaning.

We also read for ourselves documents from the RCC church, double-check with other RC sites, and yet you routinely come up with some other interpretation that is not at all present in the text. Then you get upset because we do not see what you see invisibly present, and it would seem a vast majority of RCs don't seem to see what you see either.

I am still waiting for your sources on this theory of yours that Roman Catholic bishops deceived Medieval RCs by issuing temporal indulgences when the bishops in fact did not believe in temporal indulgences. I think your representations of the RCC are distortions when you are unable to present clear facts or try to tell us that something which is very clear says something entirely different.

While I do not believe in the doctrine of papal universal jurisdiction and other doctrines of the RCC the diverge from the tradition of the Church, I do not have animosity or hatred for RCs. Yet, you continue to treat me like I am some sort of 'mean person' who is purposefully and wickedly insulting the Church of Rome.

I just don't get why you have to become so emotionally tangled up in your dealings here. There is going to be disagreement, which is why it is an 'Orthodox-Catholic Forum' not a 'Catholic-Catholic Forum.'

Now here is an example and something that I do know to be true from personal experience. Any complaint against a local ordinary written by a lay person or a priest to Rome, or to the regional synod, is immediately sent to the local ordinary in question and the local ordinary. So that if you complain about your bishop to Rome or to other bishops, it will not be long before your letter resides in the circular file of your local bishop, and you become known as a trouble-maker.

This was one of those rare times when I had to remind myself that I was reading one of your posts and not one of Fr. Ambrose's posts.

Now here is an example and something that I do know to be true from personal experience. Any complaint against a local ordinary written by a lay person or a priest to Rome, or to the regional synod, is immediately sent to the local ordinary in question and the local ordinary. So that if you complain about your bishop to Rome or to other bishops, it will not be long before your letter resides in the circular file of your local bishop, and you become known as a trouble-maker.

This was one of those rare times when I had to remind myself that I was reading one of your posts and not one of Fr. Ambrose's posts.

It is real. However sad, it is real. The laws of the Church are written with the moral presumption that those who write the laws, the bishops, will be subject the law and not stand above or outside of it.

Bishops, it is devoutly wished, must be moral and doctrinally sound souls in order for any of the principles of the ecclesia to work as they are intended.

Show me a Church where that is not the case in principle, and where there is no struggle in practice.

I prefer my struggles to be based in reality though. Not manufactured to please a crowd.

I told you then Father that you presumed too much and have misinterpreted what I said. I also told you that I would not try to change your mind or explain then. I do not intend to try now. It is too badly mangled by your over-lay on what I MUST have meant or said. There's no MUST about it save in your own mind.

J Michael, I think you summed it up well: on the one hand the Pope has a trump card, on the other hand he uses it pretty rarely. (Catholics posters, please chime in if you disagree with what I said.)

Personally I think this is crappy way to express the workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church but it fits in this group I suppose.

I was trying to drag this stupid discussion up out of the mud of papal biases and WAGs but some of my fellow Catholics prefer to root around in the slops, rather than take the risks of trying to move to dry ground.

M.

There is no try.

"...There is either do or do not." And Yoda knows what he is talking about on this one.